51ÁÔÆæ

Ms. Coleman appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment. UNAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the UNDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

UNAT first explained that under the new reimbursement regime, an expense would be recoverable if: (i) it¡¯s for tuition; (ii) it is paid directly to the school; and (iii) it is certified by the school as being necessary for attendance. UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that because another UN entity would apply a rule more favorably to his case, that entity¡¯s interpretation should trump over the one given by the organization where he actually works. Second, UNAT disagreed with the Administration¡¯s approach that if an item in a category of fees was inadmissible, then the Administration...

Mr. Kuate appealed. UNAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. UNAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant never made any appeal or request to the ABCC for reconsideration of the impugned decision in accordance with art. 17(a) of former Appendix D and that the application was therefore not receivable ratione materiae on that count. The Tribunal concluded that since the 6 February 2019 email was not an appeal/request for reconsideration of the Respondent¡¯s decision, the only contestable decision was one dated 15 January 2019. The Applicant had 30 days to contest that decision by filing a request for reconsideration pursuant to art. 17(a) of former Appendix D but...

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant¡¯s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028, the Tribunal rejected the application in Case No. UNDT/NY/2021/023, finding that the Applicant is ineligible for boarding allowance for his child. In this case, the Applicant essentially challenges the same decision to find him ineligible for boarding allowance for his child, the issue of which was already resolved in Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028. Therefore, under the doctrine of res judicata, the Tribunal rejects the present application.

In this case, the Administration initially decided that the Applicant was eligible for a prorated amount of lump-sum boarding allowance, but during the management evaluation process, the Administration found the previous decision erroneous and decided that the Applicant was in fact not entitled to any boarding allowance. Therefore, the decision subject to judicial review in this case is the Administration¡¯s decision to find him ineligible for any boarding allowance. It is clear that under staff regulation 3.2 and Appendix B to the Staff Regulations and Rules, eligible staff members are only...

The Applicant was terminated without being given the statutory three months¡¯ notice. Without that notice, the regulatory framework provides that compensation in lieu of the three months¡¯ notice had to be paid. For reasons similar to those stated in Ahmed, the grant of SLWFP to the Applicant for part of the period neither supplants nor equates to the Respondent¡¯s obligation to have given the Applicant his due notice on 10 September 2010. The Staff Regulation and Rules requires the staff member to either be given notice or payment in lieu of that notice. The Applicant in this case received...

The circumstances of the Applicant's severe illness, travel difficulties and the security issues in Sudan were all worthy considerations duly taken into account by the Organization during efforts made to accommodate the Applicant and achieve partial resolution as aforementioned. On receipt of the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation request, it was also within the discretion of the Respondent based on staff rule 11.2(c) to extend the 60- day deadline. That discretion, however, does not extend to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive the management evaluation request deadlines...